December 1, 2011

Wouldn't it be funny if after all the hand-wringing and Constitution-violating drama about getting the money out of politics, the problem solved itself, because televised debates replaced all the in-person campaigning? And, at some point, viral web ads, boosted by reporting, should become more important than those paid ads on television... the ones we fast-forward through, unless we decide to watch them, the way we decide to watch the things on the internet, like this:

The squishiness of conservatives is my biggest fear now - that after getting elected they just become RINOs. This has stopped conservatism from preventing our current problems and has help exacerbate them.

I prefer a waffler to someone who is always wrong on important issues, but I just wish we could get someone of either party to do what they campaign on. We should at least get what is advertised. It's like going to a restaurant, ordering something, and then the kitchen just sends out the easiest meal to prepare.

Says A-house, and the Scalia gang. Turn back the SC 50 years (or even 10, when Stevens was around), and Citizens United would have not have happened.

Anyway let the shekels decide--and you get BO and Hillary and Mittens with far weightier treasure chests than McCain (or Gingrinch). CU probably did more for corporate liberals than putative conservatives

Look at how much each has raised and look where they are in the polls.

Gingrich raised $3mm and may be in first. Perry raised $17mm and may be 5th or 6th. Bachman raised a bunch and is nowhere.

I wonder how much money really affects elections. Some, of course. Many people seem to think there is a direct relationship and the one with the most money wins. Doesn't seem to be the case. At least not this presidential campaign.

One interesting thing about Obama is that he has spent about $5mm more than he has raised. I wonder if this is really true? If he has already spent all that money, he has not gotten much for it as he is not doing well in election polls.

If he has already spent that money, will he be able to get enough more for the general?

Paul and Romney are also the only 2 out of the bunch whose campaigns have zero debt.

Wouldn't it be funny if after all the hand-wringing and Constitution-violating drama about getting the money out of politics, the problem solved itself, because televised debates replaced all the in-person campaigning?

I'm not sure who, exactly, really wants to get money out of politics?

The left pretends they do, but they're simply lying.

By the way, what kind of TV ads can Obama possibly run? What, exactly, has he done you want four more years of???

your man Romney's still way outclassed by BO-Co isn't he. Come election time neither he or Newtster will stand a chance in the big blue states. Prepare for Mittens' corporate-CA hype and all his wealthy GOP wasp-mormonic pals. Nausea itself.

The government lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why in electoral politics those with the most juice, those with the most accumulated resources, those with the most capital (money and human), and those with the most expressed support in the form of campaign donations, are held up as objects of disdain for those facts. And, why it is seen as a bad thing that those who have none of those assets usually end up getting tossed onto the ash heap (usually, but not always). To me it's more or less the way things are supposed to be.

Pay to play politics has been a hidden criminal version of donate to get fair access to the decision makers. That was always like protection money paid to stall attackers who wanted some of your financial power.

But the Obama bargain has transformed politics from paying for access to pay us and we will turn you over to our gangs of thugs who want to kill you.

Hornsby, as you probably know, was one of the greatest hitters of all time, a seven-time batting champion, two-time winner of the Most Valuable Player award, and full-time jerk. Lee Allen wrote that he was frank to the point of being cruel and subtle as a belch. He told everyone exactly what he thought, even if he had no idea what he was talking about. As a manager, his idea of discipline was to walk into the shower and urinate on an errant player’s leg.

Yeah, been there, seen that. Not much of a profile there, is there? No name, nothing about you. You say "Hombre" but the picture is of a woman.

You say "technology" but that can mean anything or nothing.

You say US but don't deny that you are Honduran. (NTTAWWT)

So why are you afraid to identify yourself?

If you want to know about me, try Google. I have a website, monthly newsletter, 3 blogs, two books at at Amazon,videos, speak 3-4 times a year at national and international conferences and more. If you can't find me, you aren't trying.

So why are you anonymous? What are you scared of?

John Henry

PS - I asked you once before and you evaded the question. Are you really Debbie Frisch?

If you want to know about me, try Google. I have a website, monthly newsletter, 3 blogs, two books at at Amazon,videos, speak 3-4 times a year at national and international conferences and more. If you can't find me, you aren't trying.

J claims to be a professional editor and published author, John, yet refuses to provide a link to any proof of either. This after criticizing others who were talking about their own efforts at writing.

J: OK, got to get a round of golf in--I gotta tell you man/woman/thing: You are the worst piece of shit I have ever seen on the internet and I go back to the days of usenet flame wars. You are a sorry, cowardly piece of shit. Anyway, have a nice day.

I must say that I admire the way you have been able to tone yourself down and show such admirable restraint here on Althouse.

For those who do not know who Dr Frisch is, she made national TV news a few years back for getting fired from AZ State (IIRC) in such a spectacular manner. She was all over CNN for several days.

If you don't remember that, start with her Wikipedia entry.

Then for some of her truly notable public meltdowns, in court, in public hearings, and other venues check out the dozens of YouTube videos.

At one point she publicly threatened to "Jon Benet" a 2 year old child and I think spent some time in the pokey for that. She has been in and out of federal, state and local slams for the past few years. Apparently is out at the moment.

Debbie, were you not banned from using a computer at some point? Has that ban been lifted? If not, perhaps it explains your fear of exposure.

As for my blog, you can find one of them if you Google KC Boxbottom. Let's see if you can handle that.

You can find another if you can Google Packaging Solutions. I wonder if you can handle that?

Before there were blogs, there were maillists. I started the NIOT list in 1998. 13 years and 63,000 notes later it is still going strong.

Can you use Google Deb? Let's see if you can find NIOT.

NIOT stands for Nothing is Off Topic and we discuss everything. You are all, even you Deb, invited.

Althouse: I'm fascinated by the way that anti-Gingrich ad is perceived as a pro-Gingrich ad by people who don't click and play it.

I'm fascinated by how no one here seems interested in the ad you posted. I thought it was pretty devastating. But it doesn't seem to be enough.

Most people aren't going to vote for Ron Paul and at worst the ad shows Newt to be the same sort of flip-flopper Romney is, which doesn't help Romney, especially when people are interested in Newt's ability to deliver sound bites.

Apparently the Supreme Court feels the same way:*In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads ...are unconstitutional*In June 2008, the section of the act known as the "millionaire's amendment" was overturned by the Supreme Court*In January 2010, the Supreme Court struck sections of McCain–Feingold down which limited activity of corporations